https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=846346 Jaroslav Škarvada <jskarvad@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(jskarvad@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #3 from Jaroslav Škarvada <jskarvad@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #2) Thanks for the review. > [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > > License is MIT, but the LICENCE file contains notice about the font > metrics derived from "Font Metrics for PDF Core 14 Fonts". That license > requires just copyright notice to be included. This is fulfilled. And we > already have a package with the original metrics in Fedora -- pcfi package. > So I believe that License field is correct. > The font metrics license looks for me like some kind of MIT variant (but I am not sure about it). From the text I think the current state of this package is OK and we needn't modify the License tag. But to be 100% sure I asked fedora-legal. > Issues: > [!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) > Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean > [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 > Note: defattr(....) present in %files -n vim-halibut section. This is OK > if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions > > [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at > the > beginning of %install. > Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 > See: None > They are no MUST, it is bug in fedora-review tool, it should be fixed now and I would like to keep it there for possible future EPEL inclusion. > [!]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > vim-halibut requires vim-common, while it should require vim-filesystem > Fixed. > [!]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is > installed. > vim-halibut does not depend on the main package, which contains the > LICENCE file > Hmm, well it seems it is really independent from the main package. Unfortunately there is no specific license for the VIM syntax file thus I am using simple logic: the file is in package that is licensed under MIT thus I am putting the same license file there, but it maybe overkill. > [!]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. > Note: %define svndate 20120803 %define svnver 9601 > Fixed. > > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: halibut-1.0-4.20120803svn9601.fc16.x86_64.rpm > vim-halibut-1.0-4.20120803svn9601.fc16.noarch.rpm > halibut-1.0-4.20120803svn9601.fc16.src.rpm > halibut-debuginfo-1.0-4.20120803svn9601.fc16.x86_64.rpm > vim-halibut.noarch: W: no-documentation > halibut.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{name} > halibut.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{version} > I am going to let the macros there as they are. Currently they are harmless and the line will be uncommented again when the upstream make regular release. > halibut.src: W: invalid-url Source0: halibut-20120803.tar.bz2 > Impossible to fix for now. Updated files: Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~jskarvad/halibut.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~jskarvad/halibut-1.0-5.20120803svn9601.fc15.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review